Talk:False accusation of rape/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Journal of Forensic Psychology

I got my total by adding the unfounded + actual numbers so I wouldn't have to write "and 85,000 accusations are true" the way the source did, but if editors don't think this falls under WP:CALC we can make it hew closer. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:30, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

• The study does not state that 85.000 accusations that are not classified by the Police as false are in fact true. Cases of disputed consent who may end up with acquittal in court thus branding the allegations as false are also among the 85.000, cases of innocent men who spent years in prison before being acknowledged innocent, like Brian Banks, are among those 85.000 accusations that are not filed as false after the first Police investigations, but are not necessarily true. The study states that an average 5000 accusations of rape every year are filed as false by the Police after the first investigations, adding up to a rough 5,6% of all rape allegations Isananni (talk) 21:59, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
  • You don't seem to understand the topic we are writing about here. A false accusation as written about in this article is not any accusation that does not result in a conviction, or one where a crime occurred and the wrong person was convicted. Anyway, do you have any input on my question? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:44, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
    • What question? And I do understand the topic of this article, thank you very much. The case of Brian Banks I mentioned is a perfect example of false accusation of rape that had NOT been classified as false by the police and led to a conviction of a perfectly innocent man where no rape had occured, hence it belonged to the 85.000 cases each year that you, not the research in Journal of Forensic Psychology, classify as “true” without any notion of what each file was about in the time period that was taken into consideration. Isananni (talk) 14:37, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
      • I'm pretty suspicious of the Journal of Forensic Psychology. It's a journal published by the OMICS Group, which is an academic paper mill that's been accused of predatory publishing and was sued by the FTC for deceptive practices. The FTC also claimed that there is little or no peer review with papers published by the OMICS Group which throws up a red flag. Should Wikipedia be citing studies that likely don't go through peer review? On the other hand the authors of this paper are legitimate and have published other papers in respectable journals.

I also have problems with the statement that false allegations of rape are "five times higher than for most other offence types". As was pointed out here, the operative word here is most not all. The same article points out that an individual is 15 times more likely to be accused of murder than rape. This leads me back to my suspicions about the publisher. If it had been published by an organization with a credible record then we could be more certain about peer review. Would peer reviewers have suggested that the language be cleaned up to emphasize which types of offences were more or less likely to have a false allegation? I don't know. I'd suggest striking the whole section. Ian m (talk) 01:59, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

While the editor of the OMICS Group has been subject of accusations as referenced, it has not been convicted of anything yet and you acknowledge that the authors of the research on the Prevalence of False Accusations of Rape in the United States 2006-2010 are respected scholars presently working for the most important Universities in their country and have published other papers in respectable journals. I therefore do not see how their work should be taken any less seriously. As for the statement that false accusations of rape are "five times higher than for most other offence types", if you had taken the time to actually read the paper instead of limiting your action to the section that summarizes it in this page, you would have noted that the only other crime with similar rates is burglary, where false accusations are more often than not directly linked to attempted frauds against insurance companies. Interestingly and maybe unsurprisingly, false accusations of rape also have gain as prevalent underlying motive, though not only a monetary one, but also an emotional one. False accusations of rape may address a need for attention or revenge, a need for an alibi as in the case of infidelity, they may be instrumental in a divorce proceeding etc. The same respected authors published another paper on such motives that you can find here https://www.researchgate.net/publication/313830325_Motives_for_Filing_a_False_Allegation_of_Rape Together with Kanin's research this paper may well serve a section on such motives that has already been suggested and approved to further improve this page. The article from The Cut that you are quoting, one that seems to have sought out not exactly unbiased voices over the Kavanaugh controversy 1) does not say that an individual is 15 times more likely to be accused of murder than rape. It says that an individual is more likely to be wrongly CONVICTED of murder than of rape. Now, a conviction normally comes after an accusation, but an accusation can be filed as false before it reaches a court let alone the stage of a decision over an acquittal or a conviction. 2) one of the authors mentioned in the article explicitly admits to "counting the uncounted" when referring to the supposed number of unreported rapes. In that respect any figure will do. 3) none of the authors mentioned in the Cut article, one of whom is decribed as a novelist, has, to my knowledge, published a single academic paper on any journal citing state-of-the-art research based on the e.g. FBI guidelines like the authors of the Prevalence of False Allegations of rape in The USA 2006-2010 have done. All this considered, I will reinstate De Sutter's research, whatever the editor. Isananni (talk) 06:13, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

We do not cite omics journals. it is the premier predatory publisher. see here. Jytdog (talk) 12:52, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

@Jytdog:I personally find removing the entire section of De Sutter's study a waste of a reliable source. Based on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable_sources verifiability and reliability can be based on the creator of the content rather than the carrier (the carrier being in this case, the publisher, that has had nothing to do with the creation of the content itself, the content being an authoritative study by 3 leading professors of the Criminal Department of the Universities of Amsterdam and Maastricht who have based their work on data provided by the FBI). As already shown here https://www.researchgate.net/publication/313830325_Motives_for_Filing_a_False_Allegation_of_Rape the exact same authors of the study on the Prevalence of False Accusations of Rape in the United States (2006-2010) have also published in the Archives of Sexual Behaviour, which is one of the sources to which one of the sections in this page is dedicated. The authors themselves are acknowledged to be legitimate by Ian m. Must we assume that Wikipedia considers these exact same authors to be reliable when their work is published in the Archives of Sexual Behaviour but not when it is published anywhere else? I will not revert your second edit (so YOU are one revert away from edit warring, NOT me), but I definitely hope other editors will step in in this discussion. Isananni (talk) 13:26, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

What you personally find to be anything, is irrelevant in WP. There was a community discussion that found consensus that we do not cite omics journals. User:Martinevans123 I did explain on the talk page -- see above. Please self-revert. pinging Guy. Guy, are we now citing omics journals? Jytdog (talk) 14:01, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

@Jytdog: 1) you are being unnecessarily aggressive towards me, bordering on offensive. You are not assuming my good faith, which is against Wiki policy 2) you removed an entire section after one single editor complained about the alleged unreliability of the source months after it was published on this page following the Kavanaugh's controversy and citing a magazine quoting unpublished authors that admit to "counting the uncounted". I do not call that consensus. The prior discussion on this section did not question the reliability of the source, it discussed how the content of the research should be summarised, not the research itself. I assume the reliability of the source was not being questioned by @Roscelese: when they copyedited on the content without removing the section. Isananni (talk) 14:21, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Oh, so now I'm the supreme arbiter of content in this article? Does that mean you're going to stand down from all your previous bad edits? If other people have more familiarity with the journal, to the point of citing an RSN discussion of why it's junk, I will defer to them, obviously. Please demonstrate good faith here. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:27, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

@Roscelese: No, you are not the supreme arbiter of content in this article just as I am not, but you did contribute to it and spent part of your unpaid time on it when you copyedited this section, just like I did. Have I edited on the article page after the latest revert? Does it look like I'm being possessive? Do you think I have any personal gain in having this particular section in this page aside from finding it a reliable source and a positive contribution to this page since the exact same authors are published in the same journal that makes the present latest section of the Estimates of Prevalence chapter? The results of this research even fall in the prevailing cited range of other studies. Isananni (talk) 14:36, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

No, we are not citing OMICS journals. And even if we were this is WP:PRIMARY. Guy (Help!) 14:08, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Well I think it's pretty clear that the OMICS Group engages in fraud, the FTC has been granted a preliminary injunction preventing them from making false claims and specifically addresses claims about peer review. The complaints about OMICS are all over academia, journalism and Wikipedia too WP:SCHOLARSHIP. This brings me back to the issue, should Wikipedia reference literature that's unreliable. This page is treating a paper that didn't go through peer review as an academic paper, this gives it a false level of legitimacy. Just because the authors published in other journals doesn't mean that this article doesn't have problems, that's the point of peer review. Nobody an academia says, "Well you wrote a couple valid articles so you can just publish whatever you want to from here on out." Can research really call a paper "state-of-the-art" when it wasn't peer reviewed? And just because I said the authors are valid doesn't mean that what they've written isn't. Ian m (talk) 14:05, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Yeah - I didn't see the red flags initially, but there are some glaring issues here once I read past the abstract: the authors combine false and baseless accusations, and they assume, without any real evidence, that police are correctly applying the false and unfounded allegation classification when there's plenty of literature to suggest that they routinely misapply it in accusations related to rape and sexual assault. Nblund ^talk 14:22, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

@Nblund: I assume police routinely misapply the false and unfounded allegation classification both ways. Isananni (talk) 14:27, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Not really - researchers find that they tend to overestimate, rather than underestimate the number of false or baseless reports. The British Home Office study, for instance, found that the police estimated about 8% of assault claims were false, while the official criteria suggested the number should be closer to 3%. There have been some efforts at reform, and a 2014 study found that the LAPD mis-classified cases as unfounded "only" about 2/3rds of the time, but that still represents an overestimate.Nblund ^talk 14:46, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

@Nblund: thank you for citing those studies. Isananni (talk) 14:58, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Following this discussion I wrote to the contact author of the study. Mr De Sutter was so kind as to reply and inform me that the study was indeed peer reviewed and amended before publication. Peer reviewers were not disclosed out of respect for their privacy. If the reservations are against the publisher whatever the reviews, arguing is moot, but I think it is fair to acknowledge the authors' intellectual honesty. Amendments addressed in particular the following concerns:

there seems to be some confusion about the difference between false allegations and unfounded/unsubstantiated allegations. The terms are not interchangeable, with 'unfounded' usually encompassing those that are false AND baseless (as per the UCR guidelines). I think you need to make it clear that the definition of 'false allegations' you are using is not the industry standard definition (see Lisak's work, Lonsway, etc). The industry definition requires not only that an investigation be done as per IACP, but also that allegations deemed 'false' are consciously and maliciously made by the complainant. What you are actually measuring is unfounded allegations, i.e. those that are false, mistaken (baseless), etc. Your terminology needs to reflect this important difference. The definition used in the literature currently (requiring consciousness and maliciousness) would stipulate that your examples of false allegations of murder would indeed NOT be deemed false at all. Using this industry standard definition, cases that were investigated and found to involve a mistake, or misunderstanding of the criminal code by a complainant would not be deemed 'false' but may still be considered unfounded in the UCR because they are baseless and did not occur. When you speak about allegations as 'false', you are actually describing unfounded allegations, which is a much broader category. Most of the other, newer literature in the field speaks about allegations as being 'false' only if they meet the stricter definition. Because of this, I think you need to go through and think about terminology every time you are claiming that you are measuring only allegations that are 'false', as this is not what you are really doing and will create more confusion about the prevalence of these types of allegations. This is obviously not the goal of your manuscript. Another issue has to do with using confessions or retractions as evidence of falsity. To deem an allegation 'false' most professionals in the field now require that there is actual evidence to support the falsity, rather than just a retraction or confession to police (despite UCR guidelines). This is because of an acknowledgement that police may pressure people into retracting allegations (either consciously or not, and sometimes through threats of being charged), and then cases can be classified cases as 'unfounded' legitimately under the new guidelines. Anecdotally, this does seem to be happening in some agencies on the ground, and indeed it has been demonstrated that true victims of rape will sometimes retract/confess because of fear, stereotypes, embarrassment etc. Using a retraction of the allegation as evidence of falsity is fraught with issues, and is no longer seen as demonstrating falsity, despite the UCR guidelines, by most in the field. This is something that needs to be addressed in your work, especially if you are going to call all your unfounded cases 'false'. Most importantly, I think the conclusions drawn need to be tempered to provide a more balanced picture of what these findings really show. To say that unfounded rates have fallen, which means the police are following the new UCR guidelines may be correct, but that does not mean that the rates of 'false allegations' you are offering are a correct representation, in my view. Labelling cases as false that are actually unfounded is one issue, using retractions/confessions as evidence of falsity is another. There is also the problem of police bias and rape myth acceptance in the investigations that they are carrying out to discover evidence of falsity or baselessness. Many people working in this field are now looking at not using police classifications of false reports at all, but independent ones to establish these rates, for the reasons I have outlined and others. There is an acknowledgement in the field that police decisions need to be checked in order for findings to be considered robust enough to add to the debate (for a discussion see Ferguson & Malouff (2016) Assessing police classifications of sexual assault reports: A meta-analysis of false reporting rates, Archives of Sexual Behavior, 45, 1185-1193). Another issue is that not all agencies in the USA contribute to the UCR for various reasons and motivations. This is discussed ad nauseum in many places and is a major limitation here. At the very least, you need to make it clear that your conclusions only apply to those agencies who did/do contribute in the relevant years. It might also be worthwhile to see whether there are differences in the quality and quantity of those who contributed in your sampled years, as this might explain the decrease in rates of unfounded cases. Specific Comments: -you use the word 'dissipation' inappropriately in the first sentence of the abstract and throughout the manuscript. Do you mean 'waste', or something like it? -In the abstract and results, when presenting something as a proportion (e.g. 1.16) you need to also provide the denominator. 1.16 out of what? Does it require a percent sign? -there are a number of missing commas throughout the manuscript -there are a number of awkward phrases throughout the manuscript (eg. 'vis a vis' and 'deliberate system' on page 4, use of 'in case' when you mean 'when' or 'if' on page 4 and elsewhere, first sentence of the 'procedure' section) -page 6 you talk about the unfounded category being used to 'clear out' crimes, you need to provide more details here, especially since this might still be happening but in a different way -does the 'actual offences' category encompass both solved and unsolved cases? -Your argument about why the estimate of false allegations of rape is conservative (page 9) has not convinced me, especially given my comments above. What about bias in the way the category is used now, you are also including 'baseless' allegations, etc. -page 9 final sentence is not correct. Allegations which are found to be baseless are also included, and these do not require either a confession or proof of falsity. They are allegations made in error. You need to be very specific here. Do you mean 'does not reveal proof of its falsity or baselessness'? -page 10 - your statement that 'law enforcement agencies do use the unfound category to clear criminal cases anymore' needs a lot more evidence in my opinion. Since you haven't looked at the cases I don't think you can say this. This statement needs to be pared back. -page 10 - you state that false allegations of burglary are probably caused by insurance fraud. This is an assumption that needs evidence. It is also incorrect, since you are actually talking about both false and baseless cases. You do not know how many were false (malicious) and how many were baseless (mistaken), let alone what the false ones were motivated by. -Final sentence is too sweeping, in my opinion. You have not studied all US agencies, and have not looked at whether they are actually following the guidelines. The numbers have gone down, but that may mean that they are using the unfounded category in a different way than before.

I hope the other editors will find this new information satisfactory enough to reinstate the section, if not I have no further points to present to advocate for such decision. I will personally refrain from editing on the article on this point. Isananni (talk) 10:40, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

If that's the review, then I'm not sure the authors implemented the recommendations: the reviewer is pointing to some of the same issues I pointed to above, and they're still in the paper. The authors still rely entirely on UCR data despite a broad consensus that it is unreliable, and they still assert - without evidence - that police have stopped inappropriately using the "unfounded criteria". I suspect that OMICs may solicit reviews for papers but they don't appear to require authors to implement the recommended changes until reviewers are satisfied, making it a sort of meaningless process. Nblund ^talk 14:00, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Adding a section to a Wikipedia article based on an email with the author of the study seems to violate all kinds of Wikipedia policies. WP:NOR WP:PRIMARY WP:VERIFY. Also look at the section Overuse of primary sources where there's a discussion about the use of too many primary sources. Wikipedia isn't supposed to be a literature review. Ian m (talk) 14:06, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Overuse of primary sources

Listing a bunch of primary sources and giving each one a section and a summary is not a good way to build a Wikipedia article. We don't generate reviews of the literature here. We summarize secondary sources. That whole section should go, and instead we should summarize what secondary sources that themselves are generated by experts in the field, synthesizing the primary literature... Jytdog (talk) 16:32, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

I do not see how e.g. Kanin or the now suppressed study on the prevalence of false accusations of rape etc. can be considered primary sources. In the first case I would consider the court papers Kanin worked on to be the primary source, in the second case the primary source was the FBI data, etc. In any case, adding a new section for each new study may not be an added value in the long run. Isananni (talk) 18:48, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Please read WP:PRIMARY which is policy. You will find the same definition in WP:SCIDEF and WP:MEDDEF. The argument that court papers are the true "primary source" is equivalent to saying lab notebooks are the "primary source" underlying a biomedical research paper. That is not how we use the terms "primary" and "secondary" here in Wikipedia - these are technical terms here, roughly analogous to their original use in historiography but not the same. Jytdog (talk) 18:52, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Good to see you changed the wording of your last statement. The thought must have crossed your mind that there is a difference between explaining and patronising. How considerate. Isananni (talk) 19:10, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

See your talk page. Jytdog (talk) 19:16, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

I agree that a lot of these could be excised. However, I think the Lisak (2010) and Rumney (2006) and Ferguson and Malouf (2016) are meta-analyses and review articles, so they can probably be useful models for rewriting the section. Nblund ^talk 19:59, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

I would hope you don't remove any sources though. They were very useful to have. Secondary sources I have seen -even governmental ones- sometimes quote the 2% false rate, which is not based on much if any science. I would question whether in this case, secondary sources which do not cite any studies for their figures are reliable. B^e ⊢ C^ritical 21:46, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Removal of "New york rape squad" from the summary of Rumney. I'm going to quote the text from Philip N.S. Rumney (2006). FALSE ALLEGATIONS OF RAPE here:

"In a recently published article, Greer recounts his attempts at tracking down the origins of this statistic (2% from New York Rape squad) and concludes that there is no evidence it was the product of any systematic research. Yet within the scholarly literature and elsewhere, repeated reference is made to ‘‘research’’ or ‘‘studies’’ in the context of the New York figure even though the original source for this figure cannot be identified." The citation itself reads "Greer attempted to find out the original source of the 2% figure by contacting those who were involved in the preparation of Judge Cooke’s original speech upon which Brownmiller relied. However, he was unable to establish the source: ‘‘Whether the original source was a press release, a more formal report, or simply an oral statement to a reporter, remains lost in antiquity’’: Ibid., at p. 958. Is there a reason why a 2% statistic is being listed in the same place and appearing with the same weight as peer reviewed studies published in scientific journals? That a 2% figure that, according to the exact citation it was lifted from, might be nothing more than an oral statement to a reporter? This is not a study, a meta, or even a secondary conclusion. It's a rumor. How is this justified in any way? Iwog (talk) 05:59, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Brownmiller's 2% figure isn't reliable, but other studies have found similar or lower rates. Rumney cites Theilade and Thomsen (1986), which found a rate of 1.5%. Lisak cites Heenan and Murray (2006) who find a rate of 2.1%. Nblund ^talk 14:06, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

The problem with all these studies is that not one relies on the same criteria as the other and citing percents without saying what that percent is based on can be confusing and misleading. However, so far the generally acknowledged range 2-10% seems to be still valid as far as classification following initial police investigations goes. Isananni (talk) 14:17, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm going to deal with these studies one at a time since I believe in every case a 2% estimate is demonstrably false within the studies being cited. The primary citation used in this article states that the source of this 2% number may be ".....simply an oral statement to a reporter." This is not a conclusion, this is not a finding, this is not simply unreliable. This is nothing more than a rumor. Why is a rumor being cited alongside peer reviewed scientific research published in major journals? I can't believe I even have to argue this point but when you say "but other studies" you are implying this is a study. It's not a study. It's not even a guess. It's a rumor. Iwog (talk) 15:22, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Current claim in lead section

The current claim in the lead says "....but it is generally agreed that, for about 2% to 10% of rape allegations, a thorough investigation establishes that no crime was committed or attempted." Is this for USA alone? for a number of countries aggregated? worldwide? something else? I think this should be made clear. If it can't be made clear it should not be used as a general summary statement in the lead. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:10, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

It’s based on US studies only. UK studies (Crown Prosecution Service) reported percents close to 12%. I do agree percents do not belong in the lead. Isananni (talk) 20:12, 27 September 2018 (UTC)p

I must vehemently disagree with the language being used here and the implication that false rape allegations are only 2-10% of all rape allegations. This is provably false and all attempts to provide accurate context seem to be reverted. Nearly every citation of this "statistic" in the media omits the fact that this is only false rape allegations that can be proven. I defy anyone to show me how the statement "Only 1% of rape allegations are provably true" is out of context here. It's accurate, it's supported with numerous citations including those being used to demonstrate the opposite, and one reading this without context would assume 99% of rape allegations are false. I strongly object to the massive bias being demonstrated here when the only ACTUAL attempt to quantify this number reports a false reporting rate exceeding 40% and the second study isn't even allowed to be cited. Furthermore I think this type of dishonesty is hurting those it purports to protect as the backlash is feeding into politics right now at an accelerated rate. Iwog (talk) 20:27, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

So this article is just about US, yes? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:33, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

From: Phillip Rumney "Reviews of the more rigorous international studies suggest a false allegation rate of 2-8% and 2-10% of rape offences initially recorded as crimes by the police." These appear to be mostly conducted in English speaking countries, for whatever reason, but it's not a US specific figure. Nblund ^talk 18:31, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Astoundingly Rumney's citation doesn't match this claim. One only has to look at citation 80, (Lisak) to see that "NO CRIME" is magically being changed into "False allegation" which as I argue below, CANNOT be the same number resulting from the data being studied. Iwog (talk) 16:03, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Objection to playing fast and loose with the terminology on this page

I'm going to cover three distinct terms either used on the page or contained within the studies being cited and detail how they are being misused.

• True prevalence of false accusations of rape
• Actual prevalence of false accusations of rape
• False reports of rape

A false report of rape is a determination that no rape occurred. A false allegation of rape means a man or a woman was falsely accused of committing a rape. Using Lisak as an example, a determination was made that 5.9% of all allegations were false reports of rape meaning a rape did not occur. However there can simultaneously exist many cases where a rape DID occur yet a false allegation was made by the victim. The FBI study, repeatedly removed from this page indicating a 20-26% rate of exclusion of the primary suspect by DNA evidence, shows just how badly the match is between false reports of rape and false allegations of rape. Lisak did not consider DNA evidence nor did he apply ANY standard to the 44.9% of cases which were dropped and not referred to prosecution. Therefore this study has no relevance to a page dedicated to false accusations. It does not CLAIM to be studying false accusations. It simply has no relevance to the matter at all with the conclusion being a total mismatch to the topic.

Again I will repeat my strong objection to "True prevalence of false rape allegations" and "No crime was committed or attempted" in the opening paragraph. They are NOT THE SAME THING. The true prevalence of false rape allegations can be 20% and the no crime committed or attempted rate can simultaneously be 5% without any contradiction whatsoever. This is very clearly WP:OR and worse than that, conveys a statistic which is demonstrably false and not contained within any study INCLUDING those that say the rate is 2-10%. The 2-10%, even if accepted does not measure false accusations of rape and never claims to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iwog (talk • contribs) 15:55, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Added: The opening sentence "A false accusation of rape is the reporting of a rape where no rape has occurred." is not valid and does not encompass false accusations where the wrong suspect is identified but a rape actually did occur, sometimes when the wrong suspect is identified in a police lineup. Iwog (talk) 16:08, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

It's funny that you're saying something is WP:OR when you're the one who just ranted about terminology without backing it up with any sources. The very first paragraph says that people use varying definitions of "false", so it's hard to quantify the exact number. The intro is just giving a baseline percentage of cases where no crime occurred, since "false" is not well defined. Reminder that Wikipedia is not a forum, so please refrain from using your personal opinion as a justification for changes. – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 16:15, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

My citation is Lisak. Lisak does not claim to be measuring accusations at all. It is only determining when police make a determination that a crime was not committed. Why is Lisak being included on a page devoted to false accusations when it is only measuring false reports or "no crime" rates? Shouldn't it be the positive assertion being defended here? Iwog (talk) 16:40, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Added: Since you're challenging me on WP:OR, where is the citation for the opening sentence? I've already explained why it's prima facie false so where does it come from? Iwog (talk) 16:45, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

I have no idea what you're talking about, and why you're so angry about a very neutrally worded opening sentence. Lisak clearly spends a lot of time discussing why "false" has different definitions across various jurisdictions and police departments. That's why the opening sentence says that the number is hard to determine, BUT there's another related number that is generally agreed upon. It is the opposite of conflating the two things. That's what the word "but" means. – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 17:33, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Fenixfeather: if I understand Iwog, he's arguing that we should count cases of mistaken identity alongside cases of false and malicious accusations of rape where no rape occurred. Obviously, this would be absurd, and I can't imagine any reason to do it other than to mislead people in to thinking accusations of rape are uniquely unbelievable. As far as I know, this isn't a distinction mentioned anywhere in the relevant literature.

Iwog: based on the ANI discussion, it looks like you're all-but-certain to be at least temporarily banned from this topic area. If you continue to edit Wikipedia in other areas, you should stay cognizant of the fact that that "using a synonym" is not generally going to be considered WP:OR, but insisting that there is a technical distinction between a "accusation" and "allegation" is definitely WP:OR. You need explicit support from sources. Nblund ^talk 17:46, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

I said no such thing and I implied no such thing. I'm not arguing that we should count any cases at all for any category. I am saying "No crime" is not the same as "false accusation" and are not measured the same way. Furthermore no study cited in this entire page makes this claim. Yet those terms are being used interchangeably in repeated instances. They are not synonyms as I have demonstrated. Iwog (talk) 18:00, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

I would like to know what citation is used in the opening sentence to define "False accusation of rape". Does one exist or not? You're not one to talk about explicit support from sources when you're not answering a simple question. Also AT NO TIME did I EVER claim "accusation and allegation" are different. I am claiming "No crime" and "false allegation" are prima facie different since in any "false allegation", there may or may not be the crime of rape. Likewise with any "no crime" determination by police, there may or may not be any accusation of a rapist. I don't know why this is controversial and the sticking point seems very much to be what actual English words mean. Regardless, I have correctly identified a logical fallacy in the opening sentence. Is there a citation supporting this conclusion? Yes or no? If one cannot be provided with this conclusion, I don't see any way in which this first sentence should be included here for any reason. Iwog (talk) 17:53, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

I do believe I have just been libeled. (again) Please quote me where I insist there's a technical distinction between accusation and allegation? Iwog (talk) 17:55, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

From David Lisak: "To classify a case as a false allegation, a thorough investigation must yield evidence that a crime did not occur". If you aren't distinguishing between "accusation" and "allegation", then I really don't know what you're going on about. Nblund ^talk 17:58, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

@Iwog: please review WP:LIBEL and WP:NLT EvergreenFir (talk) 18:00, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

How many ways do you want this presented to you? A "NO CRIME" can still contain OR NOT CONTAIN a false allegation. A false allegation MAY OR MAY NOT be a determinable as "NO CRIME". Lisak is ONLY claiming cases which a determination has been found of NO CRIME. An actual rape case, which is absolutely a crime, might still be a case of mistaken identity thus a false allegation. Seriously what's going on here? Iwog (talk) 18:04, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

To specifically (again) address the first sentence. "A false accusation of rape is the reporting of a rape where no rape has occurred." is not true and not supported by any of the literature. Cases where rapes DID occur can still be false allegations. Please read this again. Cases where rapes DID occur can still be false allegations if the wrong subject is identified. This is why DNA data is entirely missing from this entire page. DNA exclusion rates are FAR higher than "No crime" rates. The only reason I can imagine this is the case is that false DNA matches can occur when an actual rape has occurred but the wrong suspect is identified. (a false allegation) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iwog (talk • contribs) 18:08, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

This is not a minor distinction. This is a MAJOR error. As I said before, it's ENTIRELY possible that a "no crime" rate can be 5% yet a "false accusation" rate can be 20% in the exact same study with both being true. In such a disputed subject with so many vested interests at stake, being precise with language is absolutely necessary. I think it's reckless to claim these are synonyms and certainly not supported by any citation. So why is it here? Iwog (talk) 18:18, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Added strikeout since the Lisak citation was finally provided. Iwog (talk) 18:26, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

How about this. Lisak doesn't say "false accusation", he writes "false allegation". An accusation is against an individual while an allegation is a claim that a crime occurred. That is the way the study is using these terms and they are not synonyms. Even taking the citation at face value, there was no purpose to changing the word from "allegation" to "accusation". If sources are this important, why was this done? If we're quoting Lisak, why change the word at all? Iwog (talk) 18:31, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

The words are synonymous and are used interchangeably throughout the literature - no source that I'm aware of makes the distinction you are making. But hey, maybe if you WP:SHOUT and continue to WP:BLUDGEON this issue, everyone will simply burn their thesauri and take your word for it. Nblund ^talk 18:59, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Accepting for the moment you're right, why was the word changed then when it could have been lifted as an exact quote? Iwog (talk) 19:26, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Because normal editors who aren't conspiracy theorists who believe that women are out to get them are capable of reading things and then writing about them in their own words, and also understand the concept of a synonym. – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 20:20, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

So you've accused me of being a conspiracy theorist and you've claimed I believe women are out to get me. Do you have an actual argument why the original phrase shouldn't be used when there's a dispute like this? Please review WP:BATTLEGROUND and then let me know how your personal attacks are relevant to the topic. Iwog (talk) 20:40, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

• We are not going to include your personal rants and/or maths about how actually, most accusations "could be" false. This is a non-starter. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:05, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Apparently citing a 2% rate, claimed by the primary source as nothing more than a rumor, is clearly a starter and should be included next to peer reviewed citations in major science journals. What I am suggesting here is that a single word be changed in the first sentence to become an exact match to the source being cited. Why is there kickback on this if it's a synonym? Why is something being paraphrased when it doesn't need to be? Iwog (talk) 20:19, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

As I noted above: Lisak is citing this report for the 2% figure, not Brownmiller. The title of the article is "false accusations". Articles usually begin by defining the subject. I suppose it could be renamed, but this seems like a pointless exercise. Nblund ^talk 20:41, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

• Comment I will close this shortly unless it produces something useful. Nothing is being achieved by one editor shouting at a number of others; certainly no consensus for their changes is going to occur. Black Kite (talk) 20:45, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Sourcing

Good ref. am looking for more..

• PMID 26679304

--Jytdog (talk) 22:52, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Mentioned these above, but here are the links. Lisak 2010 is the most widely cited, followed by Rumney 2006.

• Lisak 2010 (the literature review, in particular)
• Rumney 2006
• Weiser 2017 is a less notable but still useful review of the literature from a feminist perspective - the review of literature on police perceptions of accusers, and on the motives of false accusers it especially useful, because it isn't the main focus of the other two reviews.
• Vox is a good non-academic overview

Nblund ^talk 15:38, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

I'll add a few:

• UK Home Office: A gap or a chasm? Attrition in reported rape cases
• Lisak 2010(no pay wall)
• Policing and Prosecuting Sexual Assault in Los Angeles City and County See page 36
• Quartz another non-academic overview.

Ian m (talk) 17:24, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Police on False Rape / Finland

I think it would be wise to strike the whole section regarding Finland and rename the section from "Police on False Rape" to "Police on Allegations of Rape" or "How Police Handle Allegations of Rape".

Looking through the Finland section the sources are pretty bad. One is a Finnish police Facebook post, one is a dead link to a tabloid newspaper, the other is a link to a newspaper but not to a specific article, and the others are basically a series of news reports about the Facebook post. None of these strike me as reliable in any way. To take the point further, the police are stating that people get drunk and then cry rape the next morning when nothing has happened. This is a stereotype that researchers on sexual assault describe as a problem with police reports about sexual assault.

Really the section should be how the police treat allegations of sexual assault and how they conclude, in many cases without justification, that an allegation is false. This is what the first paragraph is getting to: ("Surveys of police and prosecutors find...").

Ian m (talk) 19:31, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

References

Agree 100%. I will remove the Finnish stuff, and others can bring new material to fill it out in the way you describe. Binksternet (talk) 22:09, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

External links

• Dr. Carol Tavris' presentation at TAM 2014 Who's Lying, Who's Self-Justifying? Origins of the He Said/She Said Gap in Sexual Allegations (online video)

{{DEFAULTSORT:False Accusation Of Rape}} [[Category:Abuse of the legal system]] [[Category:Rape]] [[Category:Criminal law]] [[Category:Criminology]] [[Category:False allegations of sex crimes]]

 Not done Your proposal to change the lede statistics to "10% to 20%" does not reflect the literature. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:22, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 October 2018

Extended content

A false accusation of rape is the reporting of a rape where no rape has occurred. It is difficult to assess the true prevalence of false rape allegations, but it is generally agreed that, for about 10% to 20% of rape allegations, a thorough investigation establishes that no crime was committed or attempted. Estimates of prevalence It is extremely difficult to assess the prevalence of false accusations. All jurisdictions have a distinct classification of false accusation, resulting in these cases being combined with other types of cases (e.g. where the accuser did not physically resist the suspect or sustain injuries) under headings such as "unfounded" or "unproved". There are many reasons other than falsity that can result in a rape case being closed as unfounded or unproven. DiCanio (1993) states that while researchers and prosecutors do not agree on the exact percentage of cases in which there was sufficient evidence to conclude that allegations were false, they generally agree on a range of 2% to 10%. Due to varying definitions of a "false accusation", the true percentage remains unknown. Another complicating factor is that data regarding false allegations generally do not come from studies designed to estimate the prevalence of false allegations; rather, they come from reviews of data regarding investigations and prosecutions within criminal justice systems. The goal of such investigations is to determine whether or not there is sufficient evidence to prosecute, not to evaluate the cases for which there is not sufficient evidence to prosecute and classify such cases as "false" or "true". Archives of Sexual Behavior (2016) Claire E. Ferguson and John M. Malouff conducted a meta-analysis of confirmed false rape reporting rates in the Archives of Sexual Behavior in 2016, and found that 5.2% of cases were confirmed false rape reports. The authors note that the "total false reporting rate... would be greater than the 5% rate found here" if possible false allegations were also included alongside confirmed allegations. Los Angeles Police Department (2014) Researchers Cassia Spohn, Clair White and Katharine Tellis examined data provided by the Los Angeles Police Department in the US from 2008, and found that false reports among rape cases was about 4.5 percent. Crown Prosecution Service report (2011–2012) A report by the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) examined rape allegations in England and Wales over a 17-month period between January 2011 and May 2012. It showed that in 35 cases authorities prosecuted a person for making a false allegation, while they brought 5,651 prosecutions for rape. Keir Starmer, the head of the CPS, said that the "mere fact that someone did not pursue a complaint or retracted it, is not of itself evidence that it was false" and that it is a "misplaced belief" that false accusations of rape are commonplace. He added that the report also showed that a significant number of false allegations of rape (and domestic violence) "involved young, often vulnerable people. About half of the cases involved people aged 21 years old and under, and some involved people with mental health difficulties. In some cases, the person alleged to have made the false report had undoubtedly been the victim of some kind of offence, even if not the one that he or she had reported." Lisak (2010) David Lisak's study, published in 2010 in Violence Against Women, classified as demonstrably false 8 out of the 136 (5.9%) reported rapes at an American university over a ten-year period. Applying IACP guidelines, a case was classified as a false report if there was evidence that a thorough investigation was pursued and that the investigation had yielded evidence that the reported sexual assault had in fact not occurred. A thorough investigation would involve, potentially, multiple interviews of the alleged perpetrator, the victim, and other witnesses, and where applicable, the collection of other forensic evidence (e.g., medical records, security camera records). For example, if key elements of a victim's account of an assault were internally inconsistent and directly contradicted by multiple witnesses and if the victim then altered those key elements of his or her account, investigators might conclude that the report was false. That conclusion would have been based not on a single interview, or on intuitions about the credibility of the victim, but on a "preponderance" of evidence gathered over the course of a thorough investigation." Burman, Lovett & Kelly (2009) In a study of the first 100 rape reports after April 1, 2004 in Scotland, researchers found that about 4% of reports were designated by police to be false. In a separate report by the same researchers that year which studied primary data from several countries in Europe, including Austria, Belgium, England, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Portugal, Scotland, Sweden, and Wales found the average proportion of reports designated by police as false was about 4%, and wasn't higher than 9% in any country they studied. They noted that cases where the police doubt the allegation may be "hidden in the ‘no evidence of sexual assault’ category" instead of designated false category and suggested more detailed research into explicating both categories. Ministry of Justice (2008–2009) The UK Ministry of Justice in their Research Series published a report describing the analysis of 1,149 case files of violent crimes recorded April 2008 to March 2009. They noted that 12% of rape allegations fell into a broader definition of false accusations (victim was intoxicated, there was a delay in reporting the crime, victim retracted the complaint after the fact, or no evidence of bodily harm was recorded). Approximately 3% of the false rape allegations were identified as malicious (determined to be intentionally false). When it came to cases with grievous bodily harm (GBH), even the broader definition (no evidence, delayed report, retraction, or intoxicated victim) accounted for only 2% of crimes. Rumney (2006) A selection of findings on the prevalence of false rape allegations. Data from Rumney (2006). Number False reporting rate (%) Theilade and Thomsen (1986) 1 out of 56 4 out of 39 1.5% (minimum) 10% (maximum) New York Rape Squad (1974) n/a 2% Hursch and Selkin (1974) 10 out of 545 2% Kelly et al. (2005) 67 out of 2,643 3% ("possible" and "probable" false allegations) 22% (recorded by police as "no-crime") Geis (1978) n/a 3–31% (estimates given by police surgeons) Smith (1989) 17 out of 447 3.8% U.S. Department of Justice (1997) n/a 8% Clark and Lewis (1977) 12 out of 116 10.3% Harris and Grace (1999) 53 out of 483 123 out of 483 10.9% ("false/malicious" claims) 25% (recorded by police as "no-crime") Lea et al. (2003) 42 out of 379 11% HMCPSI/HMIC (2002) 164 out of 1,379 11.8% McCahill et al. (1979) 218 out of 1,198 18.2% Philadelphia police study (1968) 74 out of 370 20% Chambers and Millar (1983) 44 out of 196 22.4% Grace et al. (1992) 80 out of 335 24% Jordan (2004) 68 out of 164 62 out of 164 41% ("false" claims) 38% (viewed by police as "possibly true/possibly false") Kanin (1994) 45 out of 109 41% Gregory and Lees (1996) 49 out of 109 45% Maclean (1979) 16 out of 34 47% Stewart (1981) 16 out of 18 90% A 2006 paper by Philip N.S. Rumney in the Cambridge Law Journal offers a review of studies of false reporting in the US, New Zealand and the UK. Rumney draws two conclusions from his review of literature. First, the police continue to misapply the "no-crime" or "unfounding" criteria. Studies by Kelly et al. (2005), Lea et al. (2003), HMCPSI/HMIC (2002), Harris and Grace (1999), Smith (1989), and others found that police decisions to no-crime were frequently dubious and based entirely on the officer's personal judgment. Rumney notes that some officers seem to "have fixed views and expectations about how genuine rape victims should react to their victimization". He adds that "qualitative research also suggests that some officers continue to exhibit an unjustified scepticism of rape complainants, while others interpret such things as lack of evidence or complaint withdrawal as 'proof' of a false allegation". Rumney's second conclusion is that it is impossible to "discern with any degree of certainty the actual rate of false allegations" because many of the studies of false allegations have adopted unreliable or untested research methodologies. He argues, for instance, that in addition to their small sample size, the studies by Maclean (1979) and Stewart (1981) used questionable criteria to judge an allegation to be false. MacLean deemed reports "false" if, for instance, the victim did not appear "dishevelled" and Stewart, in one instance, considered a case disproved, stating that "it was totally impossible to have removed her extremely tight undergarments from her extremely large body against her will". Criticism American psychologist David Lisak criticized the collection of studies used in Rumney's 2006 paper, which estimated the rate of false allegations as between 1.5–90%. Lisak stated that many of the stats are misleading upon investigation and "when the sources of these estimates are examined carefully it is clear that only a fraction of the reports represent credible studies and that these credible studies indicate far less variability in false reporting rates." Lisak points out that even in the original paper Rumney concludes that many of the studies have inadequacies and should not be used to estimate the frequency of false rape reports. Police in Victoria, Australia (2006) A study of 850 rape accusations made to police in Victoria, Australia between 2000 and 2003 found that 2.1% were ultimately classified by police as false, with the complainants then charged or threatened with charges for filing a false police report. Home Office study (2005) The Home Office on UK rape crime in 2005 released a study that followed 2,643 sexual assault cases from initial reporting of a rape through to legal prosecutions. The study was based on 2,643 sexual assault cases, of these, police classified 8% as false reports based on police judgement, and the rate was 2.5% when determined using official criteria for false reports. The researchers concluded that "one cannot take all police designations at face value" and that "[t]here is an over-estimation of the scale of false allegations by both police officers and prosecutors." FBI statistics (1995–1997) In the US, FBI reports from 1995, 1996, and 1997 consistently put the number of "unfounded" forcible rape accusations around 8%. In contrast, the average rate of unfounded reports for all "index crimes" (murder, aggravated assault, forcible rape, robbery, arson, burglary, larceny-theft, and motor vehicle theft) tracked by the FBI is 2%. This estimate, however, does not appear in subsequent FBI reports. This estimate was criticised by academic Bruce Gross as almost meaningless as many jurisdictions from which FBI collects data use different definition of "unfounded", which, he wrote, includes cases where the victim did not physically fight off the suspect or the suspect did not use a weapon, and cases where the victim had a prior relationship to the suspect. Kanin (1994) In 1994, Eugene J. Kanin of Purdue University investigated the incidences of false rape allegations made to the police in one small urban community in the Midwest United States (population 70,000) between 1978 and 1987. He states that unlike in many larger jurisdictions, this police department had the resources to "seriously record and pursue to closure all rape complaints, regardless of their merits". He further states each investigation "always involves a serious offer to polygraph the complainants and the suspects" and "the complainant must admit that no rape had occurred. She is the sole agent who can say that the rape charge is false". The number of false rape allegations in the studied period was 45; this was 41% of the 109 total complaints filed in this period. The researchers verified, whenever possible, for all of the complainants who recanted their allegations, that their new account of the events matched the accused's version of events. After reviewing the police files, Kanin categorized the false accusations into three broad motivations: alibis, revenge, and attention-seeking. These motivations were assigned prevalence of roughly 50%, 30%, and 20% respectively. This categorization was supported by the details of complainant recantations and other documentation of their cases. Kanin also investigated the combined police records of two large Midwestern universities over a three-year period (1986–1988), and found that 50% of the reported forcible rapes were determined to be false accusations (32 of the total 64). No polygraphs were used, the investigations were the sole responsibility of a ranking female officer, and a rape charge was only counted as false under complainant recantation. In this sample, the motivations mentioned above were roughly evenly split between alibi and revenge, with only one case characterized as attention-seeking. Criticism Critics of Kanin's report include David Lisak, an associate professor of psychology and director of the Men's Sexual Trauma Research Project at the University of Massachusetts Boston. He states, "Kanin's 1994 article on false allegations is a provocative opinion piece, but it is not a scientific study of the issue of false reporting of rape. It certainly should never be used to assert a scientific foundation for the frequency of false allegations." According to Lisak, Kanin's study lacked any kind of systematic methodology and did not independently define a false report, instead recording as false any report which the police department classified as false, whereas Kanin stated that the women filing the false allegations of rape had recanted. The department classified reports as false which the complainant later said were false, but Lisak points out that Kanin's study did not scrutinize the police's processes or employ independent checkers to protect results from bias. Kanin, Lisak writes, took his data from a police department which used investigation procedures (polygraphs) that are discouraged by the U.S. Justice Department and denounced by the International Association of Chiefs of Police. These procedures include the "serious offer", in this department, of polygraph testing of complainants, which is viewed as a tactic of intimidation that leads victims to avoid the justice process and which, Lisak says, is "based on the misperception that a significant percentage of sexual assault reports are false". The police department's "biases...were then echoed in Kanin's unchallenged reporting of their findings". While also noting some of the same criticisms of Kanin, Rumney's 2006 metastudy of US and UK false rape allegation studies adds that "if, indeed, officers did abide by this policy then the 41% could, in fact, be an underestimate given the restrictive definition of false complaints offered by the police in this study. The reliability of these findings may be somewhat bolstered by the fact that the police appeared to record the details and circumstances of the fabrications." Bruce Gross writes in the Forensic Examiner that Kanin's study is an example of the limitations of existing studies on false rape accusations. "Small sample sizes and non-representative samples preclude generalizability." Philip N.S. Rumney questions the reliability of Kanin's study stating that it "must be approached with caution". He argues that the study's most significant problem is Kanin's assumption "that police officers abided by departmental policy in only labeling as false those cases where the complainant admitted to fabrication. He does not consider that actual police practice, as other studies have shown, might have departed from guidelines."

Undue weight

I see the article editors are giving way too much attention to question "what is the prevalence in percentage"? Of course men are very interested in how many of the women lied indeed, but to construct an article where 3/4 of the text is spent debating nits and picks is not good.

More attention should be given to the motives why women lie on rape.

Just to keep you on your toes. --J. Sketter (talk) 22:41, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

This article is about false accusations of rape regardless of gender. The issue of the rate/percentage is what is primarily studied on this topic as the measures and dark figure are major hurdles to research validity. EvergreenFir (talk) 22:45, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

This is a recent study on motives behind a false accusation of rape, regardless of gender, published in the Archives of Sexual Behavior, which is one of the cited and I understand accepted sources in this article. I’m sure other authors have tackled this issue too.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/313830325_Motives_for_Filing_a_False_Allegation_of_Rape

I think that including the topic of motives as a standalone section (now it is only briefly mentioned in the section on Kanin’s study) is a sensible suggestion. Isananni (talk) 06:28, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Causes

This section appears to contain WP:SYNTH. While the respective articles used (The Guardian and QZ) each respectively discuss what may be called one kind of cause of a false rape accusation, I don't think either say that there are 'two causes', which the text inserted by Nederlandse Leeuw does when it says "There are roughly two causes". Leeuw, could you help explain where these sources say this? PeterTheFourth (talk) 10:42, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I'm working on that. Just a minute and I'll provide more information. Perhaps the first sentence could be rephrased along the lines of 'Causes of false accusations of rape fall into two categories: false memories and lies'? Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 10:47, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

My concern is that there may be more than two causes - neither of the sources say there are only two causes of false rape accusations. I also don't believe that the QZ article talks about false memories at all. PeterTheFourth (talk) 10:59, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

This research paper also discusses the two categories of 'deception and memory errors', 'both intentional deception and mistaken recollections', 'false memories and intentional fabrications' etc. The QZ article does mention 'Mentally ill false accusers can be people with severe psychosis who genuinely believe they’ve been raped', which falls in the category of false memories. If you know more than two categories, you're welcome to add them. Logically, however, I think no such categories exist: if you say something that is not true, there can only be two reasons: you did it on purpose or by accident. I don't think there is a third option. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 11:12, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

PS: Turns out to be a chapter of a book, not a research paper in a journal. Nonetheless quite valuable material on the matter. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 11:50, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

There are indeed more than two causes. Here is another 2017 study published in the Archives of Sexual Behavior that expands on the motives behind a false accusation of rape as outlined by Kanin in 1994.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/313830325_Motives_for_Filing_a_False_Allegation_of_Rape

And may I add that apart from Hutcherson’s academic study, the present sources of this section (a newspaper article fron The Guardian and another blog article that was never published in an academic magazine nor peer-reviewed) are poor at best. Other sections with sources whose authors were internationally acknowledged academia were removed because the publisher, not the authors, was not accepted. Based on such alleged high standards I think this entire section should be either rewritten and given proper references or removed until something better can be assembled. Isananni (talk) 06:49, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Isananni, the 2017 paper you have provided is quite interesting. I used it to improve the Causes section. However, I think you don't understand what I mean. The eight categories of De Zutter et al. (2017), namely 'material gain, alibi, revenge, sympathy, attention, a disturbed mental state, relabeling, or regret', can still be divided into two main causes, namely deception (all eight except part of 'a disturbed mental state') and false memories (e.g. the 'sexual hallucinations' subsection of 'a disturbed mental state': people genuinely believed that they had had sex that they did not consent to, but in fact had had no sex). Secondly, I am not convinced by De Zutter et al. that 'relabeling' and 'regret' should be considered different categories, and that 'sympathy' is better understood as a subcategory of 'attention'. I hope there are better articles out there to get a better subcategorisation of the two main causes. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 05:10, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

 Comment: I get the impression that there is some semantic confusion surrounding the word false. As Wiktionary indicates, its first meaning is 'Untrue, not factual, factually incorrect'. This doesn't indicate whether information is accidentally or deliberately incorrect. However, the 5th meaning is 'Uttering falsehood; dishonest or deceitful.' i.e. deliberately incorrect. A lot of literature on this topic, text inside this article and comments on this talk page seem to presume that 'false allegation' means 'deliberately incorrect allegation'. It doesn't have to be. People may genuinely have come to believe they have been raped when in fact they haven't, in some cases they hadn't even had sex with anyone at the presumed time, but for some reason to do with a malfunction in their brain, they have mistakenly come to believe they did. We should always make that distinction. Such people aren't "liars"; they don't seek to deceive, but misremembered what happened. Misremembering past events is very common in humans, we shouldn't presume people have malicious intents. In other words, let's handle Hanlon's razor here. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 05:10, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Nederlandse, I do agree that De Sutter’s research has some objectionable points, such as “relabelling” being considered as a motive. All liars who claim a consensual sexual encounter was a rape “relabel” it, the why is the motive, not the action of lying. I can’t see the difference between attention and sympathy either. However, it is still a good academic paper based on the sound analysis of over 100 real cases and not a blog entry, so that’s one step ahead of the previous sources. I understand Rumney tackled the issue of motives too, but I have not had a chance to read his work yet and I am not even sure it is freely available online. I also agree that we need a distinction between deliberately false accusations of rape (where no sex even occured with the accused or the accuser lies about the lack of consent, whatever the motive) and wrong accusations of rape, namely the cases where a rape did occur, but the wrong person was convicted and the real culprit got away with it. In this respect, a more stringent definition of “false” in the context of accusations of rape is probably advisable. Isananni (talk) 06:18, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your answer Isananni. Glad we understand each other. Perhaps we can work together more often in the future. I would especially like to improve the false memory section, and mention all ways in which a person's memory can be distorted so that they may accidentally come to believe they have been raped. It's very human to make mistakes, and we should better understand why this happens. Hopefully we can find academic studies that provide more information. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 19:34, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

In the future I will surely try to keep track of academic papers that are consistant with the issues we deal with in this page. As for false memories, there are also cases when what started out as an outright lie on the part of the accuser, becomes a false memory as the lie gets repeated and the accuser won’t retract despite the evidence dismantling their version because they have come to believe their own lie. This is of course possibly true of several crimes, not just rape. Should there be studies on such instances, they may be worth mentioning here. Isananni (talk) 19:46, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Edits that were Deleted

In terms of the low rates of rape accusations ending in prosecution, I can find better sources. Some are even in the current Wikipedia article already. I suppose I should've cited it better despite believing it was common knowledge that few rape accusations end up going all the way to court and ending in a conviction. The reality is, if you look at even sources that were already present in the article when I edited it, a large percentage did not result in conviction or confirmed falsehood. This makes many cases unclear.

I mentioned in the introduction how this article gives information on reports mainly to authorities, not the media or acquaintances. This is needed to establish the content to come. There is little, if any, data about claims to non-officials. I also pointed out in multiple areas the important fact that the studies were generally aimed at finding events that were confirmed to not have happened (whether or not the confirmation was done effectively). There are low confirmed false accusation rates and low conviction rates (perhaps not within a trial, but from the initial accusation, as many don't make it to trial). It is negligent to not point out that many more could be false than the rates of those that have been confirmed to be false.

There was previously a lot of unverifiable content, so I deleted that and added relevant information about the sources I could verify. Large swaths, if not all of, of these edits were deleted without labelled cause. Most importantly, the article should not conflate confirmed false accusations with actual false accusations. If one looks into the papers cited on the matter, even in the page as it stands, there are many claims that may or may not have been false. This is because there is frequently, if not most often, not enough evidence to prove whether the crime happened or not. This is very important to point out to the reader; if a study shows that, say, 5% were shown false and 16% were proven true, that leaves a very high percentage that is unaccounted for in terms of veracity, leaving a high degree of uncertainty. Readers looking for unbiased information would want to know about this high degree of uncertainty inherent to the cited information, just as they would like to know if an article on rape may understate the prevalence of rape due to the uncertainty in these cases.

It was also very important to point out biasing in sourced material, when the sourced material didn't say what the page said, and deleting unneeded content, such as media depictions of rape that are not connected to the article topic (false accusations). I explained why I made these changes in the comments. To look into the edits and sources I am referring to, please look into the majority of edits from the same IP on June 26 PST. I am making the case that most of them should be restored to give clarity and reduce bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.102.252.101 (talk) 01:19, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

I reverted this IP, who seems to be you, with labeled cause. I, for example, cited WP:PAYWALL. Per WP:PAYWALL, we should not remove material supported by reliable sources simply because we can't access those sources. Not unless we present a valid reason for why the material should be removed (such as it likely being WP:OR). Removing reliable sources simply because the sources are dead links is also an issue; see WP:Dead links and WP:Preserve. Something like informationisbeautiful.net is not a WP:Reliable source. We should not engage in WP:Synthesis. Being neutral on Wikipedia does not mean what being neutral means in common discourse. Also see WP:BIASEDSOURCES. Per WP:CAREFUL, extensive deletion like yours is best discussed on the talk page first.

As for removing material not supported by the sources, that's fine. As for "media depictions of rape," if they concern false allegations, I don't see an issue with them being in the article (as long as it's presented well) since many serious topics on Wikipedia include an "In fiction," "In the media," or "Society and culture" section. But as made clear per WP:TRIVIA and Wikipedia:"In popular culture" content, there are good and poor ways to include this material. We obviously should include the material in a good way. I don't feel strongly about whether or not media depictions of rape with regard to false allegations should be in this article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 11:04, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

"There is little, if any, data about claims to non-officials" - Well, yeah. Call it a flaw on Wikipedia, but we do better at covering criminal topics than social ones. If I was going to write a rape-related article on people telling their friends that stuff happened, false claims would not be the first thing I'd think to write. @Flyer22 Reborn: it potentially could be worth including something about media depictions, but not as a list; if we were to include it, we should use media criticism. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:48, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

First paragraph

The 2 to 10% figure should not be mentioned at all. Many sources say many different things, and it's impossible to tell anyway. It should simply read "There is no accepted consensus on what the percentage of false rape accusations is", this is more accurate.

The lead says, "it is generally agreed", you say "[t]here is no accepted consensus". I don't know which is right. Two sources are cited in the lead in support of "it is generally agreed"; the first one is a book which is not previewable online online and I have no idea what it says, the second one is a study which critiques published research on false allegations and concludes, "Cumulatively, these findings contradict the still widely promulgated stereotype that false rape allegations are a common occurrence."

Unless the cited book which I couldn't check supports the assertion re general agreement, that should be removed. Unless the assertion re lack of a general agreement can be supported, the article should not assert that. That second source would appear to support an assertion along the lines of "A 2010 analysis of 136 cases reported over a 10 year period indicated a prevalence of false allegations between 2% and 10%." Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 19:27, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Out of date sources. Let us not claim 2% anymore. Zezen (talk) 17:45, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Replied in the #Out of date data section below. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:04, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Out of date data + source challenge

E.g. the old cited source for this claim: they generally agree on a range of 2% to 10%.[1] They do not anymore: see my recent edit. Let us prune it. Zezen (talk) 17:44, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Reverted. Stick to good sources. See WP:SCHOLARSHIP. And Wikipedia prefers secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, tertiary sources to primary sources. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:02, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Voila, here is the secondary mentioned by this tertiary: https://www.elsevier.com/books/false-allegations/turvey/978-0-12-801250-5

Do use it instead then. And remove the outdated (thus false) "2%->" claim everywhere. Zezen (talk) 18:07, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Simply pointing to sources and not citing passages from the sources do not support your arguments. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:10, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

And Turvey stating that the 2% has "no basis in reality" and that "reporting it publicly as a valid frequency rate with any empirical basis is either scientifically negligent or fraudulent" doesn't mean that we should remove this widely reported statistic. Mentioning it is WP:Due. And Turvey's commentary also doesn't mean that Turvey's viewpoint should be in the lead. It can be placed lower in the article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:23, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Turvey is a singular individual and did not conduct primary research, and so should not be given such prominence. On the other hand, if his work contains citations to primary research, those citations could be examined.Legitimus (talk) 18:50, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Let us tackle it from another angle. I challenge the current ref: DiCanio, M. (1993). The encyclopedia of violence: origins, attitudes, consequences. New York: Facts on File

1. It is hopelessly out of date.
2. It is not RS. See here: https://www.amazon.com/Encyclopedia-Violence-Origins-Attitudes-Consequences/dp/0816023328 Quote:This volume, as the author states, "is an album of snapshots of the places where violence enters everyday life in late 20th-century America." The author, whose credentials are not in the field of crime or criminal justice, was ill prepared to cover such a broad subject. DiCanio's entries, although packed with statistical information, suffer three main shortcomings: none has bibliographies or cited sources (outside the text) ...
3. I also challenge the second ref: "False Allegations of Sexual Assualt: An Analysis of Ten Years of Reported Cases" The spelling mistake in the title aside, the 2% is not stated there directly, hence OR. The source says something different in Discussion: An analysis of all 136 cases of sexual assault investigated by a university police department— using a coding system and independent raters, scrutinizing the classifications of the police, and applying a definition of false reports promulgated by the IACP—determined that 5.9% of the cases were false reports. These results are consistent with those of other studies that have used similar ....

Has anybody actually read these?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zezen (talk • contribs)

The 2% figure is literally in the abstract of the Lisak paper. Lisak et. al. are talking about a 2006 study in Australia (see page 1326). Tuvey is talking about an older figure which is not the source that they are citing. Nblund ^talk 22:47, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Re 3. Still no. OR or SYNTH at best. Read what it says before:

Among the seven studies that attempted some degree of scrutiny of police classifications and/or applied a definition of false reporting at least similar to that of the IACP, the rate of false reporting..."Some degree of scrutiny" ... "at least similar" are caveats opposite of what the current WP text claims.

What about 1 and 2, the other challenged source?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Zezen (talk • contribs)

I'm not sure how you're defining synth, but the abstract states: "These results, taken in the context of an examination of previous research, indicate that the prevalence of false allegations is between 2% and 10%." This figure is also supported by Lonsway (pg 1358) who says that the credible estimates are in a narrow range from "2% to 8% or 2% to 10%", and Lonsway, Archambault and Lisak who say that "when methodologically rigorous research has been conducted, estimates for the percentage of false reports begin to converge around 2-8%". This is pretty clear cut and well sourced. Nblund ^talk 00:21, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

After looking at Lonsway, Lizak, and Turvey, as well our article here, I think the initial thread actually missing the point. There are sources that criticize the oft-quoted "2% statistic" including Lowsway and Turvey. But our article doesn't give "the oft-quoted 2%." It gives a range, 2-10%. Claiming that the first digit of a range is the same as outright stating a firm "exactly 2%" is a best, jumping to conclusions. The article already contains an extensive list of studies about prevalence, and it would be dishonest to conceal that some do find around 2%.Legitimus (talk) 18:44, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks to all for reasoned discussion. You have convinced me about keeping the lower 2% bound. As my 1+2 challenge above has not been answered, I have removed only the iffy source. Zezen (talk) 05:57, 26 July 2019‎ (UTC)

Consequences

There should be some info out there on consequences to the accused. Being found innocent does not mean the accused is treated by future employers or society as if they were. This articke could go into detail on that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.79.225.131 (talk) 23:42, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Do you have any sources and do they make it clear that they are about the topic of this article (being acquitted != being "found innocent" != false accusation)? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:41, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

It'd be clearly relevant (unless we have another article that handles it, doubt it). At some point discussion of the arcticle got narrowed almost purely to the fight over statistics and percentages. It'd be good to carefully and thoughtfully widen the scope to include all the closely tied aspects connected to a false rape accusation as a occurence and a general phenomenom.

But also I advice to talk here first, because, even if in the western countries the political fight has greatly calmed down and after that the public opinion has somewhat settled, that's not necessary the case over the globe, and one should seek some universal POV's, too. And even in the West attitudes are not too fixed, but liable to change. --J. Sketter (talk) 03:00, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Use of McDowell paper

In this edit, Asmen added information about a 1985 US Air Force study related to the subject. The edit was reverted by PearlSt82 based on the fact that the source (this article from Media Radar) was not reliable. While I agree with that assessment, MR cited its own source for the data, so I restored the information with that citation. Nblund then reverted again, arguing that the claim is WP:EXCEPTIONAL and that the source cannot be verified to exist.

A search of Google Scholar for the phrase "McDowell 'False Allegations' 1985" shows that the paper appeared in the journal Forensic Science Digest and was widely cited in various works. The fact that the paper is not available online is not relevant; the source should be considered reliable. I would like to see the claim restored, so I ask all of the pinged users here to chime in. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 21:53, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

What would be the basis for considering the source reliable? Merely existing obviously isn't enough. Rumney (2006) and Lisak et al (2010) both offer fairly comprehensive reviews of the published literature on false rape allegations, and this study doesn't appear in either. Lisak and Rumney note that a lot of the prior research has been extremely sloppy and used unscientific criteria to identify "false" allegations, so older research is not necessarily considered reliable. WP:EXCEPTIONAL claims require exceptional sources, and this would clearly not qualify. Nblund ^talk 22:01, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

@Nblund: The basis for considering it a reliable source is:

1. its publication in a reputable journal (Forensic Science Digest was a publication of the United States Air Force)
2. the fact that the paper was widely cited by other authors also publishing in reputable journals (see the Google Scholar results).

Your claim that this source would "clearly not qualify" is unfounded. This data may be an outlier, but that does not automatically invalidate the result. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 22:07, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

References

I'm not dismissing it just because it is an outlier, I'm primarily dismissing it because it appears in an obscure journal, because the most prominent analyses don't cite it, and because experts have questioned the rigor of older studies of false rape allegations. The handful of sources citing the paper appear inconsistent on the findings: This source says it is unpublished and also reports a far lower rate (30%) for false allegations. This source says it was 45%. Gross mentions that the investigators in McDowell's study gave polygraphs to the accusers, but, as Lisak notes (pg. 1323) this approach is generally viewed as an intimidation tactic that persuades victims to stop pursuing charges. None of these sources offer any details on how McDowell conducted his research, and I seriously doubt that he followed what would be considered rigorous scientific practices based on what I seeing here. This all seems exceptionally bad, and I don't see any indication that high quality reliable sources ever cite this paper. Nblund ^talk 22:42, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

@Nblund: Very well. You appear to be much better versed on the topic than I. I will defer to your opinion in the matter. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:38, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Gender

Why is there absolutely no mention of gender disparity in the article? —Srid^🍁 03:25, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Possibly because the stats for false accusations more or less conform to the stats for true ones, contra the implication that women are somehow more criminal. I've reverted your bold edit for this reason. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:35, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Restored

Restored appropriate sourced text about how rates are inflated/misrepresented due to classifications that may be confusing to the general public. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:31, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Original research

Rv original research. Sources don't say "minimum" and we don't make this allowance when describing any other statistics. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:30, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

What is the meaning of "unfounded"?

The lede says "unfounded" means there was no evidence, but that's contradicted by Statistics Canada and by the CBC.

Sources:

• https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/11-627-m/11-627-m2018024-eng.htm
• https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/sexual-assault-unfounded-stats-1.4757705

MonsieurD (talk) 23:25, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

I mean, this seems to indicate that they're using a definition of "unfounded" at odds from the commonly understood one? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:24, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

The FBI defines it as a "false or baseless complaint". In other words, it does not rise to the level of "reasonable suspicion" and possibly not even a "modicum of evidence" (see Burden of proof (law)). EvergreenFir (talk) 23:02, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Percent figure for Denmark, etc.

This edit, which changed an assertion of reported rates for Denmark from 45% to 1.5% caught my eye. I looked at the cited source, and see that it says on page 140:

The lowest estimated number of false allegations of rape can be found in a study of reports between 1981 and 1985 at the Institute of Forensic Medicine, University of Copenhagen.⁹² The lowest figure recorded was for the year 1983 where 1.5% of rape complaints were deemed to be false, with the highest rate being 10% in 1982. Like many other of the studies, the reasons for determining a report to be false are vague.⁹³

The University of Copenhagen is in Denmark, of course, but I don't see indication of where the cases they were studying were located. Looking at notes 92 and 93 there, it appears that the first sentence, which mentions Copenhagen, and the second sentence, which mentions 1.5%, do not concern the same study; note 92 refers back to note 49, which cites P. Theilade and J.L. Thomsen, "False Allegations of Rape" (1986) 30 Police Surgeon 76 (see [1]), note 93 refers back to note 59, which refers to page 38 of this book, which I have not seen. This also relates to Table 1 in the cited article, which doesn't mention either Denmark or Canada but does mention 1.5% and 45% and cites both of the aforementioned sources (and which also mentions rates of 47% and 90% -- higher than 45%). I've tagged this cite {{or}}. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 15:50, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

It's interesting to compare the assertions currently citing this source in support with the assertions citing it in this initial version of this article as of 22:00, July 15, 2009. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 17:30, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

For full context, the edit was self-reverted and introduced a couple of unintentional mistakes (seems to be this person's first edits). So it's more that the number was changed from 1.5% to 1.5%. I think the problem isn't really with these numbers specifically, but all the statistics strewn about the article. I think a lot of cherry-picking to get numbers as low or as high as you want could be done – and indeed I can think of a political group who frequently try to POV push on Wikipedia and have an interest in the latter – so we really need the most authoritative and modern sources we can find. It also needs to be abundantly clear which figures are government or police statistics and which are sociologist/statistician/scientific figures, and we need to not present the two in the same context. This might need subject expert attention. — Bilorv (talk) 21:02, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Yeah. I wasn't really minded to complain about the specifics of this edit, though I did get specific after looking at the cited source; it was more a bit of drive-by grousing about disagreement between assertions, cited sources which don't support those assertions, and drift over time onto that state often from assertions which the sources did support when the assertions and sources first appeared. This is not on point here, but I see a lot of unsupported assertions inserted into articles just ahead of source citations which have nothing whatever to do with those newly-inserted assertions. That's drifting off topic for this talk page, though. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:51, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

False rape allegation prevalence assertion in the uneditable introduction section

The (uneditable) introduction paragraph asserts "Rape allegations made to police or campus authority are proven false approximately 2% to 10% of the time.". It references a 2010 small scale study, "False Allegations of Sexual Assualt: An Analysis of Ten Years of Reported Cases" by David Lisak, Lori Gardinier, Sarah C. Nicksa,and Ashley M. Cote that analyzed 136 sexual assault cases at the University of Massachusetts Boston. Of the 136 cases 5.9% were coded as false allegations. The first problem with supporting the 2% - 10% assertion using this study is that the study only analyses 136 cases from one campus police department. The same study discusses a variety of data and research methods from previous studies conducted across other jurisdictions such as Toronto, Philadelphia, Britain and Australia not denoted in the assertion. I would suggest that the assertion in question be changed to reflect the overall discussion in the referenced study. An additional suggestion would be to reference all of the aforementioned studies. If the wikipedia community agrees to this, I would be happy to research links to them myself and add them references.

The questionable assertion: "Rape allegations made to police or campus authority are proven false approximately 2% to 10% of the time."

Suggested replacement: "Various studies have concluded anywhere between 1.5% to 90% prevalence of proven false rape or sexual assault allegations. The prevalence of false rape and sexual assault allegations made to police or campus authority are difficult to accurately quantify due to non-uniform reporting policies and incident classification disparities across police departments.

Clary Jaxon (talk) 15:56, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes I think this is a good idea. As long as WP:RS support the replacement (or a variation thereof). Please come back with the sources and it can be discussed here. Thanks. Robynthehode (talk) 16:41, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't object to changing the wording but it's totally inappropriate to include eg. the discredited Stewart number in the lede. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:55, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

@Clary Jaxon, Robynthehode, and Roscelese: I oppose the proposed text due to the incorrect interpretation of the Lisak et al. source by Clary Jaxon. The Lisak article based the range of 2-10% not only on the analysis of "136 cases from one campus police department". Rather it uses that analysis to lend further support to the 2-10% range identified by the authors in their review of past studies. The study says,

An analysis of all 136 cases of sexual assault investigated by a university police department—using a coding system and independent raters, scrutinizing the classifications of the police, and applying a definition of false reports promulgated by the IACP—determined that 5.9% of the cases were false reports. These results are consistent with those of other studies that have used similar methodologies to determine the prevalence of false rape reporting. Among the seven studies that attempted some degree of scrutiny of police classifications and/or applied a definition of false reporting at least similar to that of the IACP, the rate of false reporting, given the many sources of potential variation in findings, is relatively consistent:
2.1% (Heenan & Murray, 2006)
2.5% (Kelly et al., 2005)
3.0% (McCahill et al., 1979)
5.9% (the present study)
6.8% (Lonsway & Archambault, 2008)
8.3% (Grace et al., 1992)
10.3% (Clark & Lewis, 1977)
10.9% (Harris & Grace, 1999)

Thus, the Lisak article is using their primary analysis to lend validity to their secondary analysis of the overall range of false reports. The useless and meaningless "1.5 - 90%" range from the Rumney article is (as explained in the Lisak article) inaccurate and misleading and has no place in the lead. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:22, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

90% prevalence? Um, no. Completely false. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 03:09, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

And ridiculous! Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 03:11, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

My initial comment wasn't in support for the suggested change in text but to the editor to provide relevant information supported by appropriate sources that would be open to discussion. Sorry if I didn't make myself clear earlier. However prejudging the issue prior to an editor providing such sources is not our job as other editors no matter what we feel on the subject. And at least Clary Jaxon came to the talk page to discuss. Thanks. Robynthehode (talk) 10:14, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

The 2–10% range is accurate and well-sourced. The 90% figure is ludicrous. — Bilorv (talk) 18:13, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

____

References

Racism in False Rape Accusations

At this point I’m realizing I can’t just punch a 9th category, but I’m still sure that information is relevant since we knew FRAs have been used as a weapon against oppressed and marginalized groups in history. I’d like to propose creating a new section to describe this, discuss the format of this new section and the sources that could be used.

While I don’t plan on using these sources (Due to not being “Official”) I’d like to start by listing them. While racism against blacks is documented enough in the Jim Crow section I think it’s still better to preface it with a “Racism” section in the cause area, as well as broaden the terminology when not specifically referring to black men.

https://www.kpbs.org/news/2010/oct/04/sd-rape-accusations-have-racial-implications/

https://digitalcommons.mainelaw.maine.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1042&context=faculty-publications

https://youtube.com/watch?v=m86wjCDM_gc

https://theundefeated.com/features/being-black-in-a-world-where-white-lies-matter/

https://advertiser-tribune.com/news/244678/when-believing-all-women-leads-to-evil/

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0021934706296025?journalCode=jbsa

2604:2000:1107:8A76:3864:4EC3:F7CA:9949 (talk) 22:52, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 July 2020

There have been over 100 false rape claims as a result of facilitated communication, and this is still going on. Under the "Causes" section, please add a new subsection called "Facilitated Communication", like so.

Facilitated Communication

See also: List of abuse allegations made through facilitated communication

Facilitated communication is a scientifically discredited technique that attempts to aid communication by people with autism or other communication disabilities who are non-verbal. The facilitator guides the disabled person's arm or hand and attempts to help them type on a keyboard or other device. Research indicates that the facilitator is the source of the messages obtained through FC, rather than the disabled person. However, the facilitator may believe they are not the source of the messages due to the ideomotor effect, which is the same effect that guides a Ouija board. There have been a large number of accusations of sexual abuse made through facilitated communication. As of 1995, there were sixty known cases, with untold numbers of others settled without reaching public visibility. Since then, the number of cases has continued to increase.

--- Attribution ---

Some text has been copied from facilitated communication and List of abuse allegations made through facilitated communication. 66.244.121.212 (talk) 17:54, 25 July 2020 (UTC) ,

References

 Done this is a controversial suggestion so further discussion may be warranted, but I believe this is relevant information and due weight to include. The information appears scientifically correct and well-sourced from my perspective. I have implemented the request in this edit, with a couple of typographical changes but also changing the language around "large number of cases" because this is subjective and it's not clear to me that it follows our neutral point of view policy. — Bilorv (talk) 23:53, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your help. --66.244.121.212 (talk) 00:23, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Jogger case etc.

@Ian m: as Calton (talk · contribs) notes, the subject of the article is accusations of rape where no rape has occurred - which is not the case with this incident. Many reliable sources do draw connections between the Scottsboro Boys and the Central Park case, but if we were to mention it, it would be important to note that it's essentially...orthogonally related? It's related to the intersection of racism with accusations of rape, but it's not actually an example of the article topic. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:16, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Roscelese (talk · contribs) There's a problem with the definition used in this article and with the article itself. A false accusation is when someone is accused of something they didn't do, it does not mean to accuse someone of something that didn't happen (although that could be the true). From the New Oxford English Dictionary, "Accusation: a charge or claim that someone has done something illegal or wrong." Also, see the Wikipedia definition of Accusation. Within that definition, the Central Park Five case matches that definition in the fullest sense of the words "false" and "accusation".

What the current definition is talking about is a false declaration or assertion, where someone has claimed something that didn't happen. If you look through the citations, the term "allegation" shows up repeatedly, but "accusation" only shows up three times, so as written, this article is not really about accusations.

The subject of the article should probably change to "False allegations of rape" and then be expanded to include false accusations, as in someone who is accused of committing a rape that they didn't do and the reasons and effects of that.

But yeah, the Central Park Five is a clearcut case of a false accusation and that's why I keep adding it back. Because it matches the article topic. I'd also add that the Central Park Five case matches the second type of false accusation in the False accusation article and the False allegation of child sexual abuse article. Expanding the definition to actually include false accusations would align this article with the other two articles.

The proper definition for this article is probably something like, "A false allegation of rape is a statement that someone has been raped by an individual that is unsupported by the facts, either because the accused individual did not rape the accuser or because the alleged incident did not occur." Ian m (talk) 02:05, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

@Ian m: We do not need to look up the definitions of "false" and "accusation" separately when the thing that sources discuss when they talk about false accusation of rape is crimes that didn't happen, not crimes that did happen but were wrongly pinned on someone else. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:05, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Roscelese (talk · contribs) "a false allegation may result from mistaken identification by witnesses. In this category of case, a rape has occurred but the wrong person is identified as the perpetrator." Ian m (talk) 07:58, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

References

Reporting rates

@Bilorv: the article cited specifically says that the 10% metric for Canada is inaccurate, can we remove that line or use a different source? —blindlynx (talk) 21:11, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

How about this edit? Removes the sentence as the other two say similar things, and are reasonable summary statistics for most of the current body of the article. Also reorders since the sentence on methodologically uncertainty seems like it should be presented after the stats. — Bilorv (talk) 21:17, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

that works—blindlynx (talk) 21:39, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 21 December 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

---

False accusation of rape → False allegation of rape – (was False allegations of rape) – This article is really about allegations not accusations. Looking through the text, "allegation" or "allegations" appears 62 times, "accusation" or "accusations" only appears 30 times (including the title and leading definition). The list of references, further reading, and external links include 3 instances of "accusations" (and those are only from news media sources), but 20 instances of "allegation" or "allegations". Most of the instances of "allegation(s)" are from peer reviewed sources. The two most cited articles barely use the term "accusation", it shows up 6 times in Rumney (2006) and once in Lisak (2010), but they use the term "allegation" 171 times and 50 times respectively.

References

Ian m (talk) 00:38, 21 December 2020 (UTC) ; edited 08:25, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

• Why switch from WP:SINGULAR to plural? Otherwise, the two forms seem pretty synonymous in common usage. — BarrelProof (talk) 16:31, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
  • I agree that it should be singular, especially because the article is currently written in a way which defines and clarifies the idea of a "false accusation", not highlighting or listing particular examples. I don't see a substantial difference in the two meanings, except that accusation implies more agency and certainty on the part of the accuser, while allegation faintly implies that an assertion is being made passively and without facts to support it. When we switch to the singular form, "False allegation"" sounds worse to my ear than "False accusation", but I'm not enough of a linguist to say exactly why. I think the title should stay how it is. RoxySaunders (talk) 01:44, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

I hadn't thought about plural vs singular. I was mostly going with references which nearly all use the plural. But the singular form makes sense.

I looked a bit more into the distinction between "allegation" and "accusation". I think the difference comes down to the the legal definitions of the two words. An accusation is a formal charge made by a prosecuting attorney or by a grand jury indictment, while an allegation is a statement that hasn't been proven yet. Since this article describes individuals making statements to the police or other authorities, then the term allegation would apply, but accusation wouldn't. Ian m (talk) 21:18, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

• Leaning oppose; our article on the concept of Accusation (which, I will disclose, I substantially wrote), cites sources broadly defining the term in both legal and non-legal terms; our article on the concept of Allegation (on which I have worked very little) provides an entirely legal reading of the term. BD2412 T 05:14, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
• Also leaning oppose per comments from RoxySaunders and BD2412. The terms seem synonymous in common usage, and the current form seems a little less artificial or stilted. — BarrelProof (talk) 17:43, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

References

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Rolled back some changes + scope question

I've reverted some changes made to the lede in the past few weeks, including the removal of "men" from the paragraph about privileged people making false accusations, the more confusing wording in the first sentence, and the elaboration on the consequences of false accusation in eg. the Jim Crow South.

At what point did we decide that incorrect IDs of perpetrators of real rapes fell into this article? That is not consistent with what the sources say. The Central Park jogger case obviously relates heavily to some of the cases we discuss in this article that are straight-up false, but sources that talk about false accusation generally use it to refer to fictitious crimes. [Edit: Oh, welp, I see I mentioned this a year ago...] –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:22, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello I’m the one who originally added the paragraph about race and privileged people making false accusations under an IP. I tweaked it because it was inaccurate to the sources I pulled to support it. All the sources go in detail about incidents of white women in the United States making false accusations against black men which led to the mass murder/rape of innocent black men and women, and an explanation on how it was/is a prevalent problem.

Also my second bit on the first paragraph isn’t referencing an incorrect identification of a rapist. Saying that you have been raped (Without specifying a perpetrator( and claiming someone did a rape should be distinguished as they’re both statements used in false accusations June Parker (talk) 06:41, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't follow your second point. What I am pointing out is that while sources often note that wrongful conviction of innocent people for the perpetration of a real crime committed by someone else is a racialized issue that bears similarities to false accusations of a crime that did not occur, they are not the same thing. Sources talk about false accusations of rape as accusations of crimes that did not occur.

I also wouldn't say "justification for prejudice"? Surely it is more appropriate to say "malicious intent" given that the accusations described in that section would not be made if prejudice were not already present. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:03, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

@June Parker: Wait, I just realized, is the distinction you're making that you think it's a "false accusation of rape" if someone says they were raped but doesn't accuse anybody? That is also not consonant with the sources. A false accusation of rape occurs when someone accuses a person of a rape that never happened. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:08, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

@Roscelese: Specifically to your second reply, I'm afraid your stuffing words in my mouth. But this can be solved if we fix the introductory sentence since it's creating too much confusion. The initial definition before I came in was "Woman claiming she was raped when she was not" which like you said is not consitent with the rest of the article. I changed it to include "Person A claims person B raped" which can also be read as "Person A claims person B raped Person C" or "Person A claims person B raped them", all situations concerning a blatant lie. I think we can exclude the initial definition. June Parker (talk) 20:56, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

@June Parker: Sources indicate that a false accusation of rape is one where no crime has occurred, not one where a crime occurred and the wrong person was identified. What is your reason for changing the article to say the latter? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:43, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

@Roscelese: Because I was mistaken and thought that's what the sources indicated, but I looked into it and realized it is not. Which is why I removed that statement ages ago. June Parker (talk) 21:50, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Regarding "prejudice" inserted into the lead section, the idea is unreferenced, and is not a summary of existing article prose. We need to have a cited source discussing the concept of prejudice. Also, let's see whether the literature characterizes false accusations as "malicious". Binksternet (talk) 22:01, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

@Binksternet: Hello, I had been asked you to come to the talk page already to discuss this. You are repeatedly reverting the page's contents to a version that is not backed up by the sources used. For one false accusations are defined in this article as when a specific perpetrator is named for a rape case when they are not guilty and when there was no rape, not when a person claims to be a victim when they are not without naming a perp, which is what I was discussing with @Roscelese: already. Secondly the "Analysis" you removed is also referenced by the sources used. Again i asked you to come here and discuss why you felt the need to remove it but instead you attempted to edit war. June Parker (talk) 22:06, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Can you supply a citation for the bit mentioning prejudice? Binksternet (talk) 22:09, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

@Binksternet: The existing citations (That I pulled from lower down in the article in the "Historical racism" area) go into detail about how racism and hatred of black people allowed American society to pereptrate ridiculous false accusations against black men and turn a blind eye to the violence it results in.

I also do not appreciate how you are changing the first sentence into something that does not represent the contents of the sources without going to the talk page first, and still trying to ream me in about properly cited material. June Parker (talk) 22:28, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

The part I'm concerned about is you shoehorning "prejudice" and "malicious" in the lead section. This is a violation of the guideline WP:LEAD which says we should not introduce new ideas in the lead section, and that the lead section must be a summary of the article body. Your very first effort at this article introduced the idea of privilege in the lead section, without any mention of privilege in the article body. Please take a good look at the WP:LEAD guideline to see why this cannot continue.

Regarding "prejudice", the word racism is far more appropriate here. In any case, these ideas must be fleshed out in the article body before they appear in the lead section. Binksternet (talk) 00:03, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

@June Parker: (edit conflict) Your edits are making the article more confusing. If you agree with me that wrongful conviction/misidentification of the perpetrator of a real crime does not belong in this article, there is no need for the rambly "particular person, particular person" in the lede. I do not feel that the previous version - "A false accusation of rape happens when a person says they have been raped, but in fact no rape has occurred" - was unclear. Do you believe that it gives the mistaken impression that someone simply saying they were raped, without naming a perpetrator, constitutes a "false accusation"? @Binksternet: I guess I see where you're coming from about "malicious intent," but it seems relevant (and very sourceable) that cases like the Emmett Till case or the Scottsboro Boys case are not the typical false accusation case that the criminology literature is talking about. Even if, say, the purported white victims in the Scottsboro Boys case may have been chiefly motivated by their desire to escape suspicion as prostitutes rather than to hurt and target the boys specifically, they still chose to falsely accuse them of a crime that carried a death sentence, to accuse them rather than any of the white men present, and to play on the public's racism in pursuit of a conviction. Cases like these are a distinct subset of the general topic. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:15, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Regarding malice, the criminal law textbook Practical Aspects of Rape Investigation says there are three motives for false accusations of rape, only one of which is malicious. The listed motives are: "providing an alibi, seeking revenge, and obtaining sympathy and attention." It is not accurate to characterize all of the false accusations as malicious. Binksternet (talk) 00:26, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

First off, Binksternet, privilege and prejudice are not new ideas because it is explained (In detail) in the sources used when the article shifts to the topic of Jim Crow and historical racism. I yanked those sources from the bottom to the top when I added that paragraph. Prejudice is a parent term to racism, (The way it's used in english today) and I don't see a reason to not say it if it's already in the article.

I won't be doing this any time soon, but consider I plan to pull some sources from another page to bring up how aristocrates in Ancient Rome would dub consensual relationships between their daughters and men they did not like as "Rape", and considered them eloping as rapture. If anyone does something similar, drawing attention to an era in history where disatantaged men were victim of false accusations made by powerful women, it would most likely have nothing to do with race but class or faith. The Jim Crow section would have to evolve and it would no longer just be about race. Prejudice is a parent term to racism (The way it's used today) so it allows the article to include such stuff should that happen. But concerning the content we have now, the reason I said "Malicious" is because if the accusation is being made out of spite for the accused and their race or social status, how could that not be malicious? That would make it fall under something akin to "Seekign revenge", like how Carolyn Bryant claimed Emmett Till raped her out of vengence for him being black, and existing near her.

Secondly, Roscelese, I do agree with you and I do agree some of my edits may have causes needless confusion. I do believe the original statement creates that impression, I thought you were challenging me because you thought I was trying to keep that. I don't believe that statment is accurate to the sources but we can hammer out what should exist now, or tell me if I'm wrong. June Parker (talk) 00:56, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

I got to jump in here. @Roscelese:, you keep insisting that a false accusation of rape is "false accusation of rape occurs when someone accuses a person of a rape that never happened". That is not the only definition. In Saunders 2012, the author describes how that definition is not so clear cut, and that false allegations can be lumped into two categories--the false complaint and the false account. The false complaint matching your definition, and the false account being an account that has varying levels of truth which may include rape. While the false complaint is quite rare, the false account is much more common. The author cites a case where a young woman was raped but deliberately misidentified the assailant because they were afraid of the actual rapist. This was a false allegation even though the rape actually happened and the police believed the victim. Saunders goes on the state that it's important to describe and distinguish between false complaints and false accounts because law enforcement lump the two together which leads to higher estimates of false allegations, even though everyone agrees that the cases of false accounts are fairly rare.

In Rumney & McCartan 2017, they describe seven different categories of false allegations, which includes "mistaken identification by witnesses. In this category of case, a rape has occurred but the wrong person is identified as the perpetrator." See the Central Park Five case. They cite data in that show that mistaken identity contributed to roughly 67% of the false convictions of sexual assault, while perjury or false accusation contributed to only 45% of false convictions. Ian m (talk) 05:44, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

@Ian m: This is just a conversation about defining the terms and scope of the article. I can see how the (even) rare(r) case of "real crime, deliberate misidentification" would fall into this bucket, but I still don't agree that literally any wrongful conviction is a "false accusation of rape" and the sources do not generally back that up. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:22, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

References

Is the part about USA racism in the summary warranted?

This article is about an international issue, I'm not sure this special case should figure in the article summary. What do you think ? MonsieurD (talk) 12:50, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

The Jim Crow laws and lynching of black people in the U.S. are a significant historical topic; to give an example, To Kill a Mockingbird surely has to be one of the most famous English-language literary works there are. If there's other moral outrages predicated around false rape accusations on this scale then I'm sure we'd like them to be covered in the article. Incidentally, it's an oversight, in my view, that To Kill a Mockingbird is not currently mentioned in the article. — Bilorv (talk) 16:00, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Yeah it doesn;t make much sense. Obviously black men being falsely accused is the most recent example, but "Rape" has always been subjective in the way its defined legally. Often rape laws permit actual (Moral) rape to be commited by powerful men or against oppressed women, while (Legally) it's solely defined as any interaction between powerful women and oppressed men.

I see in an original edit someone said something like "False accusations of rape can be used as a weapon by priviledged women against unpriviledged men" then cited white women and black men as an example. Can we go back to that? 2603:8080:F600:27A2:2CF7:CC46:22BE:190D (talk) 19:36, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Can you give other significant historical examples (with references) of false accusations of rape being "used as a weapon by privileged women against unprivileged men"? — Bilorv (talk) 21:21, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

I can come back and commit to finding sources later, but for starters:

1. When India was colonized by the British, they used the same arguement. It ranged from "The big scary indians are going to rape all the white women if we don't put them in their place" to "The evil uncivilized indians are raping and abusing their own women, we should replace them, because it's automatically better if we're the ones doing it". The stereotype is exploited in bad faith by racist people even today.

2. Alot of African countries that were invaded by Europeans, as well as the South African Apartheid, ran under the same ideas. Falsely perpetuated fear about Africans raping european women when it often occured the other way around, europeans women more likely to abuse the African men, and African women being victims.

3. In Roman times sex between a slave male and a free woman was forbidden, and written off as rape. It was only until late in Rome's life that they discovered some free women were in consensual relationships, thus they wrote a law to allow a free woman to write a contract with the owner of her desired partner to avoid the normal legal consequences of sex, on the grounds any kid she births become a slave to the slave owner.

4. Also in rome, rape was seen as a private matter and thus laws were written in reference to abduction and seduction. Thus, a free woman eloping to marry boyrfriend whom her (Very rich) father did not approve of is considered being "Raped" and thus the boyfriend is falsely accused. Likewise in later times when someone is executed for rape, the victim can also be executed if she

consented to the "Rape", which would mean, if she genuinely did consent, then it wasn't actually rape in the first place, merely sex society didn't approve of.

5. Genghis Khan was a known mass rapist, but that's only a label we're giving him *now*. The Mongols themselves, legally, may have not seen it that way. To boot he created many laws to protect "Women" that generally only applied to women in his harem or ethnic Mongol women that weren't associated with enemy tribes and countries. (This is a bit more flimsy than the others but if anyone can clarify in the future I would greatly appreciate it)

2603:8080:F600:27A2:2CF7:CC46:22BE:190D (talk) 01:32, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

These are some really interesting historical examples; however, I'm not convinced any match the scope of the article here. The lead sentence reads: A false accusation of rape happens when a person says they have been raped when no rape has occurred. (1) and (2) are not examples where named people were falsely accused of specific rapes that had not occurred, but generalised racist moral panics. In (3), (4) and (5), I have to ask: what are we taking rape to mean here? If rape is a legal term, then by definition these cases of "rape" in Rome were legally rape. If it's a sociological term, then maybe we have something to work with. But the best way to understand other cultures' legal and moral systems is likely not to say that they "falsely accused" people of crimes; rather, it might be that they criminalised things that we would not considered unethical in our society.

In any case, we would need references that specifically say that something was a "false accusation of rape" e.g. "In Rome, false accusation of rape was a regular practice used to oppress the slave class ..." Then we'd have something worth incorporating into the body of the article, and if it reached a substantial size then we could summarise it in the lead. But if such sources don't explicitly call something a "false accusation" then it's synthesis. — Bilorv (talk) 18:37, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

There shouldn't be any historical examples given in the lead, as it is meant solely to introduce people to the topic, not the specific politics of one country. It should be removed or placed somewhere else in the article, as it's unnecessary and irrelevant to the concept of it, seeing as it is a specific circumstance.Crun31 (talk) 05:06, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Which is why, in my opinion, the original was better. "FRAs are often used by women positions of power to oppress men who are below them, such as white women and black men in the united states" and/or "In some cases false accusations often lead to violence such as murder and actual rape of the accusation victim and their commmunity/families if they are seen as defending the accused". This summarizes the situation African-Americans suffeed through without making it about them specifically, and justifies the section about them as well as opening the door for other users to feel comfortable including other historical instances of FRAs outside of American context. 2603:8080:F600:27A2:803D:AF8F:6EDB:5159 (talk) 13:41, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

No, this proposed passage does not summarise the situation of African-American lynchings, but generalises the situation to the point where it provides much less useful information. It is unsourced, unclear and does not summarise the body of the article: what does "often used" (present tense) mean if the article has no content about it being used today in the way described? And of your 5 examples above, none are present in the article (nor am I convinced that there is scope for them to). — Bilorv (talk) 09:24, 10 August 2022 (UTC)